American Economics In The Bush Years
Tweet
Conservatives have repeatedly scratched their heads at the low regard Americans have for the economic policies of the Bush administration. In their minds, the stock market goes up and Wall Streeters are loaded with cash at bonus time, so why does America give the Bush economy a middling at best rating? Here’s part of the answer.
Americans earned a smaller average income in 2005 than in 2000, the fifth consecutive year that they had to make ends meet with less money than at the peak of the last economic expansion, new government data shows.
While incomes have been on the rise since 2002, the average income in 2005 was $55,238, still nearly 1 percent less than the $55,714 in 2000, after adjusting for inflation, analysis of new tax statistics show.
The combined income of all Americans in 2005 was slightly larger than it was in 2000, but because more people were dividing up the national income pie, the average remained smaller. Total adjusted gross income in 2005 was $7.43 trillion, up 3.1 percent from 2000 and 5.8 percent from 2004.
Total income listed on tax returns grew every year after World War II, with a single one-year exception, until 2001, making the five-year period of lower average incomes and four years of lower total incomes a new experience for the majority of Americans born since 1945.
The administration has repeatedly tried to impress on the people, propaganda style, that things are great, all is well, but if the people don’t feel it they ain’t gonna feel it no matter how hard you try to spin them that way.
63 Responses to “American Economics In The Bush Years”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
So if you the Democrats you support raise taxes, expand entitlements, and further regulation, that will be the needed panacea for our economy? Why Democrats continue to raid the private sector to that they claim to champion is so disengenuous. The economy, by historical standards, is doing fairly well- what is most troubling about it is individual/personal savings, but that is something that the Federal Government doesnt control. If you are such an economic whiz, make a substantive case why our economy is so bad, when many key indicators suggest otherwise. And as for improving what troubling economic indicators there are- higher income and business taxes will not solve them, no matter how much the Dems think they do.
I didn’t say it was very bad, but income growth is supposed to be one of the major side effects of an economy. It isn’t happening under Bush’s policies.
Oliver, you are not seeing the big picture here. In 2005, the median income — the point at which half of households are above and half are below — was $46,326. This was up from 2002, 2003, and 2004. Yes, over the last 15 years, the average median income is relatively flat. There are many reasons that economists cite as causes- the rising cost of health benefits is a key reason for the flatness of average worker wages. Another explanation is that the changing demographics of the population have eased the transition to an economy with slower wage growth. Many baby boomers have just seen the last of their children finish college and leave home. Suddenly, they have had a huge increase in their discretionary income as the enormous costs of tuition and child care that they have borne for decades have now disappeared. They may not be any better off in terms of their family income, but they feel a lot better off financially.
These reasons aside- there is much to be optimistic about our present economy- don’t be such a cynic. Disposable income per capita has gone up every year under Bush. Home ownership is at record levels. The Dow has nearly doubled in the past 5 years. Unemployment at record lows. It is not a winning argument when you talk down the economy, in spite of the fact that so many sectors performing so well, and inflation is under control.
Lucha – that is more tub-thumping bullshit than I can stomach in 1 post. Allow me to unpack that last paragraph.
“Disposable income per capita has gone up every year under Bush” — what the hell does that mean? Disposable income averaged over the whole population? This is the like the old joke: Bill Gates walks into a bar, and everyone’s average net worth goes up by a half billion dollars. If this statistic is even real, it certainly is a BS statistic made up to cloud the issue that while the very rich have had their extra disposable income increase dramatically, normal people’s had utterly flatlined.
“Home ownership is at record levels.” – um, hello, subprime crisis? What happens when 20% of those homeowners are foreclosed over the next 2-3 years when all the garbage ARMs reset? Another bullshit statistic designed to hide the fact that regular working people are suffering.
“The Dow has nearly doubled in the past 5 years.” – so? again, REGULAR PEOPLE do not measure how well they are doing by the fucking Dow!! If you have millions in investments and live off trust funds this may be good, maybe nice if you have a lot in a 401k, but this means much less that the Wall Street wunderkinds insist it does.
” Unemployment at record lows. ” – but what kind of jobs do people have? Is this a good statistic if someone who was formerly an engineer earning $80k/year had his job outsourced to India and is now trying to support a family on half that working as a phone support guy? Or a McD’s burger flipper?
Some further thoughts – the low rate of savings – how much of that is due to the old trope of “people are lazy and stupid” and how much is because people have NOTHING LEFT OVER to save with?
Also since Lucha used the example of kids getting out of college, it is also worth noting that it is harder now than at any point in my lifetime to afford a college education, which is needed to even hope to stay in the middle class in this country, let alone get to the upper class (since we’ve exported all our manufacturing and blue collar jobs already). There are less sources of financial aid available now than at any time I remember. Also the evil changes made to student lending institutions, which are now able to vary the interest rate on student loans after one graduates (thanks W and Republican congress!), means it is harder than ever to pay back loans, which students must take more of than ever because there is no more aforementioned aid. I recently had a friend empty his savings to pay off what remained of a student loan from when he went back to school to get his teacher cert because of this issue, and before his interest rate was jacked up.
This coupled with the changes to the bankruptcy laws, making it harder for people saddled with debt because of these policies, or because of health emergencies or layoffs, to get out from their debt means that we have engineered a permanenet debtor slave class. And this is not because the people are “lazy and stupid and deserve it” as Lucha and most free-market laissez faire absolutists believe, but because we have DELIBERATELY engineered a society to make it as hard as possible for people to get ahead.
Rheinhard- Your tub-thumping remark aside, there is plenty to be optimistic about this economy, and all of the stats I cited are accurate. The problems in the sub-prime market is a very difficult near-term problem, not a long term problem for our economy- it too, shall pass. Check your facts- less than 1 percent of total mortgages are in sub-prime foreclosure. Let’s also not forget that the global economic boom, as represented by surging U.S. exports, is further proof of the strength of our overall economic situation.
I hate to break this to you, but many of the people who took out mortgages that caused the subprime crunch really had no business taking out mortgages, in many cases expensive mortgages that were well over their economic ability to pay. Whose fault is that? The federal government? Please.
Im not going to comment all of your points because of time, but one point you made definitely merits rejoinder-
“it is also worth noting that it is harder now than at any point in my lifetime to afford a college education”
This is utter bupkuss. Yes, college tuition is increasing, but there is no one who applies for a college loan that will be denied. I did it. Millions of others have taken out loans- they are an investment in your future. You will be required to pay your college loans back, like any other loan. Anyone who has any desire for secondary education will not be denied because of lack of money in this country, and for you to insinuate otherwise, is really a gross misunderstanding of the ample opportunity that exists for anyone who is motivated to get an education. Yes, some people are fortunate enough to have parents pay for their education. Others earn scholarships. But the bulk of people out their get student loans, and the rate of rejection for student loans is so small, it hardly gets a mention in the overall stat sheet.
“there is plenty to be optimistic about this economy”
Yes, as these guys have acknowledged, as long as you are already wealthy, you are doing VERY well in the Bush economy and have every reason to be optimistic. No one has denied this.
Anyone who has any desire for secondary education will not be denied because of lack of money in this country
L
O
L
No, the DOW has not “nearly doubled”. It has risen from about 9 000 to about 13 000. That is an increase of rather under 50%.
Unemployment in the US remains, to my knowledge, higher than it was before Bush took over. (Around 5% now, am I right?)
Wow, way to side step the problem. Rheinhard didn’t say people couldn’t get loans for school, just that the rules had changed and now they were far more expensive to pay back, contributing to the collapse of personal savings, among other things.
As for the stock market being a reliable indicator of overall economic health, well, that’s utter crap. It’s exhausting detailing all the ways the tax system is geared to throw nearly all the benefits of the stock market to the wealthy, but a relatively good summary can be found here.
Let’s also give a polite golf clap to the Fed rushing in to help bail out the banks and the hedge funds caught in the subprime crisis by lowering the discount rate and flooding the market with money (hello inflation). So we have a nice case of massive corporate welfare (the lending rate TO BANKS was lowered, not the lending rate to the public) while the people losing their homes get the odious bankruptcy bill. I guess a little socialism is fine when you’re rich.
I have to say it’s nice to see the old tropes about Dems and higher taxes and big government still hold sway despite decades of Republican administrations that ratcheted up massive debt while expanding government enormously. That, however, should be beside the point (well, the government expansion and taxes part, not the piling up of trillions in debt). Taxes can boost economic activity (don’t make me drag the Clinton example out…again), or they can be a drag on investment. They can do minor things like repair ailing bridges or help maintain a healthy staff at agencies designed, originally, at least, to protect the public good, like the FDA, and ensure that contaminated foods don’t make it to market (or lead laden toys for that matter).
I also have to say that it is pretty funny to read an article showing how, historically, the majority of citizens are not doing better, only to see a comment that “historically the economy is doing fairly well.” It never fails. Talk about how PEOPLE are doing and you’ll get the typical Wall Street reply.
“Your tub-thumping remark aside, there is plenty to be optimistic about this economy, and all of the stats I cited are accurate.”
If you look at dozens and dozens of stats, you can always find something that is improving. That’s hardly a reason to be optimistic.
If CEO compensation shot up 200%, would that be good for the economy, or bad for the economy? Well, it’s good if you are a CEO, bad if you are a worker, cause CEOs don’t get raises for having well paid workers. Well paid workers cut into profit margins.
Lucha Libre: “Anyone who has any desire for secondary education will not be denied because of lack of money in this country”
Oliver Willis: “LOL”
I’ll add to that and say this man is delusional.
alotta economic illiteracy going on here…
using 2000 statistics as a benchmark is beyond dumb.
that was the last year of the biggest economic bubble in the history of history. by definition, a bubble is a major misallocation of resources. anyone who points to an era of bogus companies, corporate cheating and lax oversight as an aspirational goal knows little to nothing about economics.
bogus capital gains, economically ‘unnecessary’ jobs, etc pumped up 2000 stats. to use an example in this thread, bill gates was worth approximately twice as much as he is now and those stock options he gave himself along the way would’ve pumped up ‘average stats’.
one can’t/shouldn’t argue that stock market gains should count in one stat but not another.
also, the 3 million illegals would depress many of the figures… so it’s good to see alotta libs-progressives-dems mistakenly endorse immigration reform without realizing it.
this ny times article remains a poorly written piece of work:
- “average” is not a particularly economically sound term–try ‘mean’ or ‘median’
- “The I.R.S. data showed that the number of Americans making less than $25,000 a year shrank, down by 3.2 million, or 5.5 percent.”
so there are less poor people than the vaunted 2000?
it’s bush’s fault
- according to the article, poor people–implied thru ’50% earn less than $30k language’–receive a full 100 basis point reduction in taxes
i could continue with problems associated with the NYT article, but i have to go back to daytrading
“all of the stats I cited are accurate”
The point is that they’re irrelevant to the plight of the middle class.
that ’3 million illegals’ number refers to those who snuck in during the bush 43 administration–at least my own wacky estimate
- the “median income”, “home ownership”, “unemployment” figures lucha cited are irrelevant to the middle class?
- C.S.Strowbridge said: “If you look at dozens and dozens of stats, you can always find something that is improving. That’s hardly a reason to be optimistic.”
a majority of the stats which have been traditionally used to gauge the economy–gdp, inflation, unemployment, home ownership, yes even the stock market–are in good shape.
bush administration critics appear to overlook/ignore the these traditional economic gauges in order to criticize.
“Unemployment in the US remains, to my knowledge, higher than it was before Bush took over. (Around 5% now, am I right?)”
Have at it with the Gub’nit’s own data:
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
What you’ll find is that Bush has created not one net job.
Lucha Libre: “Anyone who has any desire for secondary education will not be denied because of lack of money in this country”
Oliver Willis: “LOL”
“I’ll add to that and say this man is delusional. ”
So where are all the people who have been turned downed for loans for college? Where are the all the people denied education because of lack of resources?
Since I work at a college that has students across many different demographics, I can tell you that anyone who has a desire to go to school, can go.
There are a variety of financial aid and financing options including scholarships, work-study, employer tuition assistance, and student loans for students of lesser means. Repeat- anyone who has a desire to go to school- community college, university, or trade school- can do so. No one who takes out a loan for education loan for the first time will be denied.
You all seem to think that the Federal Government should pay for everyone’s education. Is that another constitutional right that I missed- the right to a free secondary education?
When I read that someone in this thread says that “The point is that they’re irrelevant to the plight of the middle class”, that again, is demonstrating collosal ignorance. All of the segments of our economy are interdependent. Tax increases on the wealthy and businesses, which is about the only economic remedy Democrats ever seem to propose, have several negative consequences- they lead to less spending by upper income types on industries that employ Middle Class people, less capital for businessess to hire new workers and expand Research & Development, colectively cause the economy to stagnate and depress overall economic growth.
Class warfare types such as yourselves don’t understand that for a society to be truly prosperous, you need to have a prosperous upper class, and no matter how much you tax the upper class, there will still be on the lower rung of the economic ladder. Punitive taxation of the wealthy only comes back to hurt the larger economy- and if you’ve ever looked at the tax
code, the tax rates that truly are punitive are rates imposed on MIDDLE CLASS income earners which rob them of the ability to grow their savings and their wealth. Perhaps one day you class warriors will see the light that we need all sectors of our economy to perform, that we shouldn’t be envious of the wealthy, there is ample opportunity for all Americans to succeed, and that our Constitution was drafted with the intent to protect private property and wealth, not to confiscate it.
If you look at dozens and dozens of stats, you’ll always find something that is negative. That’s hardly a reason to be pessimistic.
“So where are all the people who have been turned downed for loans for college? Where are the all the people denied education because of lack of resources?”
Do you know how many people can’t take on $60,000 in debt to go to college? And what about people who can’t take time off work to go to college? These people are being denied post-secondary education because they don’t have the money.
But don’t bother responding, I can tell you are a clueless fuckwit who never figured out the concept of declining marginal value.
No I don’t think the government should pay for everyone’s education – but since education is the #1 thing that improves class mobility and increases the pool of people that can contribute to the economy, it is in the government interest to do all it can to see that people can afford education.
Wall Street cheerleading aside, I have looked at the figures and there is no way that, all other things being equal, my family could afford to send me to the same Ivy League university which I attended 20 years ago as things stand today. Now you can cite all the “don’t believe your lying eyes” propaganda you want, but that is just a fact. Maybe one could do it by taking out far more loans, but to argue that people are OK because they can get an education but just come out of it with more than twice as much debt as they would have 20 years go isn’t convincing.
And again, despite this economic interdependence, you refuse to understand that in the end normal people look at THEIR OWN BOTTOM LINE to get a sense of the economy. Sooner or later, all the market propaganda in the world isn’t going to convince someone the economy is great who finds he can’t afford to send his kid to the same college he attended, and whose real disposable income hasn’t increased in half a decade, and whose mortgage is screwing him, while hoping hism job won’t get outsourced next year.
Question: should the government make primary education free, or should we make the proles pay for K-12 as well?
“If you look at dozens and dozens of stats, you’ll always find something that is negative. That’s hardly a reason to be pessimistic.”
The net savings rate is negative. That means growth is being spurred on by taking on debt. This is not sustainable. This is bad.
If you disagree, you are a fucking moron, cause we recently saw what happens when the middle class tries to buy their way to a better economy on their credit cards.
The important point to learn from this, the people on the left, the ones you accuse of having BDS, they warned you this would happen and they were ignored.
We. Are. Smarter. Than. You.
Time for you to shut up and let the adults try and clean up your mess.
First off, one needs to be reminded that the numbers from 2000 represent what figures were just at the time that the dot com’s were starting to lay off thousands and thousands of people because businesses such as Pets.com were dying off faster than a pit bull in Michael Vick’s backyard.
Rheinhard, your response to what Lucha wrote is absurd. Define “regular working people” and “normal people.” It sounds great in campaign slogans, but the fact is, such a demographic doesn’t exist.
You also spout bogus statistics about guys making $80K a year who are now flipping burgers. You have nothing to support such an allegation.
In addition, the problem with the sub-prime market lies with the people who took on mortgages they knew they couldn’t afford or didn’t plan for. Now they’re simply walking away from their obligations and yet it’s somebody else’s fault? Please.
As for secondary education, Lucha is exactly right. There isn’t a person out there that can’t afford to attend a community college for two years and then transfer to a four year school. People do it all the time with loans, grants, scholarships, etc. The loans they’ll have to pay back, but nobody is turned down for them because the debt is guaranteed by the federal government so there’s no exposure for the lenders.
Rheinhard didn’t say people couldn’t get loans for school, just that the rules had changed and now they were far more expensive to pay back, contributing to the collapse of personal savings, among other things.
That is complete nonsense. Interest rates on student loans are lower now than they were 10 years ago and you still don’t have to start paying the loan back until 6 months after you graduate and you still have 10 years to pay it off. So exactly what rules have changed?
And if things are so horrible for the “normal people”, why is it that when pollsters ask people about their own economic situation, it routinely comes up with 2/3 or more being satisfied with their own finances? What, are they polling only rich people?
Wall Street cheerleading aside, I have looked at the figures and there is no way that, all other things being equal, my family could afford to send me to the same Ivy League university which I attended 20 years ago as things stand today.
Then you wouldn’t go to an Ivy League university.
Is that so horrible?
“- the “median income”, “home ownership”, “unemployment” figures lucha cited are irrelevant to the middle class?”
No, but the median income has been flat, and home ownership is not taking into account foreclosures. Unemployment is fine, but it masks the increased pressure/higher risk that the Bush economy is putting on the middle class.
“But don’t bother responding “(censorship and dictatorial)
“I can tell you are a clueless fuckwit” (anger and hate)
“who never figured out the concept of declining marginal value” (arrogance and elitism).
Censoring, dictatorial, angry, hateful, arrogant, and elitism, all in one sentence. Behold, the animating principles of the modern Democratic party.
Jay – I cited a SPECIFIC example of AN ACTUAL PERSON I KNOW who was affected by the changes to the student loan laws. Under the new regime, a person can do all the necessary due diligence, compute that they could afford a loan of principal X with interest rate Y based on the likely income they’ll have based on college only to find after they graduate that whoops! the bank now wants Y+5%. So they must either vastly reduce their own expectations to pay back more than they planned or stay in debt several more years.
This is the heart of the problem that CS points out. More and more of the burden of education and everything else has been shifted over the last decade or 2 onto the backs of the poor and middle class. People are having to take on far more debt to accomplish the same amount of good (education, home, etc.) than they would have 20 years ago. People are taking on debt just to stay afloat, not even to get ahead. Because of that debt and the lack of growth in real wages (not to mention piss-poor job creation under Bush) people find that they’re working harder than ever to just stay afloat, treading water economically. That’s why all these wonderful statistics aren’t convincing people that black is white. All the magic pixie dust coming out of Alan Greenspan’s butt isn’t going to change that.
Jay, you give yourself away. No maybe it wouldn’t be horrible, but you yourself here are saying outright that people now should have lower expectations than they did 20 years ago. Thanks for making my point for me.
The current generation is the first since WW2 where the kids don’t expect to do as well as their parents.
In addition, the problem with the sub-prime market lies with the people who took on mortgages they knew they couldn’t afford or didn’t plan for. Now they’re simply walking away from their obligations
Haw!!
When these folks took a mortgage and bought a house, it was “Home ownership is up! People are living the American dream!”
But when they lose the house to foreclosure, they’re “walking away from their obligations”?!?
This kind of conservativism just hollers “compassion!” don’t it?
The net savings rate is negative. That means growth is being spurred on by taking on debt. This is not sustainable. This is bad.
So says the person championing the economics of 2000. Can you say “bubble”?
The economy being as cyclical as it is, there most likely will be a downturn (or at least a slowdown) during the next Presidential term. And all those that knashed their teeth in 2002 about how the President is 100% reponsible for the economy the day he takes office will be explaining to us in 2010 that a President’s economic legacy extends far after leaving office.
For the rest of you economy-deniers, fact-based rebuttal to Oliver’s “analysis”.
This kind of conservativism just hollers “compassion!” don’t it?
Actually, it is just called R-E-A-L-I-T-Y.
I know that I cannot live in the “make love, not war, Imagine all the people, no more poor” pseudo-Utopia that your mind occupies, but that’s just me.
More and more of the burden of education and everything else has been shifted over the last decade or 2 onto the backs of the poor and middle class. People are having to take on far more debt to accomplish the same amount of good (education, home, etc.) than they would have 20 years ago
But again, who is responsible for that? You know, you talked about specific examples, but how many do you know that spend outside their means, not because they have to as you claim, but because they want to? They don’t want to drive the old Corolla or Taurus. No, they want that new mini-van or SUV that sets them back $20,000. The $500 32″ HDTV is no good. They have to have the 50″ plasma for $2500 (oh and they just have to have the $1500 Bose surround sound system to go with it). The 1200 square foot home that will serve their needs is no good. No, they have to have the 3000 square foot home with the pool and granite countertops. Buy clothes at a discount store? Hell no. It’s Macy’s.
Do you think the ridiculous amount of people spending thousands of dollars on black Friday every year are doing so with cash? Nope. They’re charging it and why? Because their kid just has to have that Playstation 3.
Sorry, but the problem is largely societal with people living with the “I want it now and I will pay for it later” mindset.
You talk about actual people you know, I see the same thing. A guy I know has a good job and for the last 4-5 years he’s been making nearly $100K a year thanks to all the overtime he’s been able to work. But now, the bills still need to be paid, and his company is cutting back on overtime. But his two older kids had to have top of the line laptop computers. He had to get that brand new Chevy Suburban with all of the upgrades for a family vehicle. His younger boys have to keep going to karate classes. His daughter had to have that sweet sixteen birthday party that cost $4000. That kind of thing goes on and on. He got a settlement on an insurance claim at work. Did he use it to pay off debt? Nope. He bought a Harley.
Lord knows I’ve been guilty of this as well. The problem is, people these days are too quick to point the finger of blame at everybody else for their financial situation. They rack up debt because they want more instead of being satisfied with what they have.
Jay, you don’t understand how this economy works. The simple fact is that nearly 70% of the economy is consumer spending so if we had not been so consumer-debt driven, we’d hardly have had any GDP growth at all. In fact, if you take out mortage extractions, one of the largest sources of consumer debt increase from the last decade of the economy, we’d possibly be looking at flat or negative growth over the entire Bush presidency.
Consumer debt increase is not the basis for income inequality. The basis for income inequality is a massive change in the tax system. Dividends and capital gains are now taxed at 15%, which is why Warren Buffett muses that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. It may seem like its cool to think you too are in Buffett’s tax bracket, but I submit that you probably are not.
In addition, the problem with the sub-prime market lies with the people who took on mortgages they knew they couldn’t afford or didn’t plan for. Now they’re simply walking away from their obligations
Hoo boy. How many people here have taken out a mortgage? Quite a few, I imagine. Getting a loan doesn’t depend on how nice or earnest you are, or how much you think you can pay for something. You’re asking for money from a company who loans money based on risk assessment. A loan that doesn’t default is profitable. One that does… not so much.
When you apply for mortgage money, you are scrutinized based on your income, debt ratio, payment histories, and employment history. If you have too much debt, too recent a job change, etc., you are going to be declined. Happens all the time. The reason the subprime mortgages are imploding is that lenders changed THEIR OWN CRITERIA for lending.
This is not a first-time buyers fault. They went in and got a load of hooey from their lender about what the lender thought was a reasonable debt load for them to assume. By writing the loans as ARMS, buyers were lulled by what appeared to be a doable payment. Once those ARMS started popping up, the squeeze was on.
Buyers should educate themselves, but sellers shouldn’t misrepresent. The further problems with sub-primes is that lenders, knowing full well the risk on these loans was too high, bundled and resold them to other lenders in order to massage their risk back to a less precarious level. It was a house of cards, and the wind took it out.
Blaming the buyers for this scam is silly. Blame the folks who cooked up the scheme to begin with. They’ve made it difficult for the rest of us to negotiate a home loan for a least a decade.
Jet, when do we start allocating responsibility to those who get into those situations? Buyers were not ‘lulled’ by ARMS with a teaser rate of 1.5% for the first 12 months. They just didn’t consider the possible negatives and look forward at the situation in the worst possible light as opposed to the best. It’s not hard to sit there and say, “Hm. If housing values don’t increase by much this year and I don’t get my credit back in shape, our mortgage is going to go from $800 a month to $1600 a month. Maybe we should wait.”
Again, it comes back to the “I want it now!!” mentality with people throwing caution to the wind and buying homes they couldn’t afford under normal circumstances. Instead of waiting another year or two, they just had to have it and now that the situation is screwed up, it’s the fault of the lenders who structured the loan as the customer agreed.
Amazing.
“Censoring, dictatorial, angry, hateful, arrogant, and elitism, all in one sentence. Behold, the animating principles of the modern Democratic party.”
Hey Lucha Libre, you’re fucking stupid and I’m tired of your ignorant shits speaking like you know what you are talking about. Is that hateful and angry, you bet, but I have reason to be hateful and angry.
And you know what, compared to you I am Elite. And that’s a good thing. Smarter is better. You would think after 6+ years of Bush people would get that.
“when do we start allocating responsibility to those who get into those situations?”
Damn straight, why the fuck should taxpayers bail out banks who gave out loans that were clearly bad business?
A little caveat venditor is good for business.
Damn straight, why the fuck should taxpayers bail out banks who gave out loans that were clearly bad business?
Hey, I don’t disagree with you.
C.S.Strowbridge-
Im not going to get in the gutter with your profanity-laced diatribe. I wouldnt consider myself a genius, but im not “F#$@# stupid” either. Im sorry that you admit your rantings are based on hatred, and perhaps you need to re-examine the underlying emotions you have that animate your poplitical discourse. I believe in serious, substantive discussion and debate- I believe in engaging in the “arena of ideas”. You, on the other hand, only wish to make ad hominum attacks, and discredit any competing ideas and views without actually engaging them with facts and logic.
These types discussions are instructive, not so much because they help us hash out issues and policy disagreements, but because they highlight the dichotomy between those people that are hate filled individuals who wish to silence dissent, as you yourself admit to being, and persons such as myself, who long for discourse, debate, and the exchange of ideas, minus the personal animus.
Think about it, rather than emote about it.
Hey Lucha Libre, go fuck yourself. From your first post you attacked Democrats in general and Oliver Willis specifically. Now that someone is attacking you back you’ve decided to cry about bad language.
Well, I consider lies to be much, much worse that profanity.
“Im sorry that you admit your rantings are based on hatred”
My ‘rantings,’ as your try and dismiss them, are based on the facts.
My hatred is also based on the facts, and guess what, hatred is good. Without hate we would never defend ourselves.
“These types discussions are instructive, not so much because they help us hash out issues and policy disagreements, but because they highlight the dichotomy between…”
The only difference between us, besides the fact that I am undoubtedly smarter than you, is I don’t hide behind fake civility when I insult people. That’s disingenuous.
“Think about it,”
I have been thinking about it, right from the beginning. I knew that an economy based on flipping houses to people who couldn’t afford it but were borrowing anyway was a bad idea. I knew that without job growth, any positive signs were not helping the average person. I predicted this mess, and when I did, people like you attacked me for having BDS.
Well guess what, when you’ve been accurate in your predictions from the beginning, you earn the right to tell others to shut the fuck up. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean your ignorance has to be given the same weight as my knowledge.
C.S.-
I havent “attacked” anyone. I certainly have critiqued and criticized policy positions commonly espoused by Democrats. An attack is not the same as a critique. I don’t make personal attacks- I merely criticize individuals’ policy prescriptions, unlike you, who needs to demean and belittle people who disagree with you. And I also try to maintain civil discourse, which is something you obviously arent making any attempt to do. And sorry, I don’t cry about anything, and im a big boy if you want to tell me to F-off. Im just not going to engage in the same diatribe as you, and there is no “fake civility” behind that.
I don’t know how old you are and how you can document how you have been “right about your predictions from the beginning”, but if you are such an expert financial and economic prognosticator, im all ears to listen to your market forecasts and stock picks. Perhaps you can also convince me how higher income tax rates and higher taxes on businesses stimulates job creation and economic growth while you are at it.
Please, tell me where you have published, where you have testified, so I can see if you are all talk but no substance. Does your curriculum vitae extend outside this forum?
Hey Lucha Libre, go fuck yourself. From your first post you attacked Democrats in general and Oliver Willis specifically.
Oh please. All he did was attack policy positions. In the meantime, here’s some of the insightful nuggets you’ve offered up:
I’ll add to that and say this man is delusional
I can tell you are a clueless fuckwit
If you disagree, you are a fucking moron
Hey Lucha Libre, you’re fucking stupid and I’m tired of your ignorant shits speaking like you know what you are talking about.
Hey Lucha Libre, go fuck yourself.
Stunning.
Well guess what, when you’ve been accurate in your predictions from the beginning, you earn the right to tell others to shut the fuck up.
Oh please. What predictions are you babbling about?
“Oh please. All he did was attack policy positions.”
Really? He brought up raising taxes, expanding entitlements, and increasing regulations, none of which were mentioned in the story or the post.
Why do you think he brought that up? To poison the well, which is a form of an Ad Hominem attack.
Just cause he does his attacks in s pseudo-scholarly fashion and I do mind with blunt force doesn’t mean he’s better than me.
“Oh please. What predictions are you babbling about?”
The housing bubble bursting. I even compared it to Dutch tulips.
He brought up raising taxes, expanding entitlements, and increasing regulations, none of which were mentioned in the story or the post.
Okay, but Democrats support raising taxes and expanding entitlements!!
Do you support increasing taxes on people making more than so much per year? Answer: Yes.
Do you support universal health care? Answer: Yes.
Therefore, you support raising taxes and expanding entitlements. I cannot understand how you see that as an ‘attack.’
In the meantime, you virtually ignored anything he had to say about the economy, resorting instead to calling him a “fuckwit.”
“An attack is not the same as a critique. I don’t make personal attacks-”
An Ad Hominem attack is a personal attack.
“unlike you, who needs to demean and belittle people who disagree with you.”
People can disagree with me and I won’t belittle them. For instance, Oliver Willis and I disagree on a number of points for the elections in ’08. I’ve never called him a fucking moron. At least not on that topic. (His belief that the NFL is a better game than the CFL is another matter.)
However, if someone acts like a moron, I will call them a moron. I don’t believe in treating people with more respect than they deserve.
I also don’t think calling someone a fucking moron is any worse than using an Ad Hominem attack.
“I don’t know how old you are and how you can document how you have been “right about your predictions from the beginning”, but if you are such an expert financial and economic prognosticator”
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you give hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to people who can’t afford it, bad things will happen. In fact, you would have to be completely fucking retarded not to figure it out, which is why I have total contempt for those that didn’t figure out this was going to happen years ago.
(I also predicted the dotcom bubble bursting as well. But that was equally obvious.)
“Perhaps you can also convince me how higher income tax rates and higher taxes on businesses stimulates job creation and economic growth while you are at it.”
This is why I called you a fucking moron. I don’t even know where to begin to correct your misconceptions.
George W. Bush broke the economy and created record deficits and (near) record low job growth, (not to mention a stock market that is relatively flat over his term.) It is going to take some tough choices to fix it. If taxes go up, and they will, you have George W. Bush to blame.
“Okay, but Democrats support raising taxes and expanding entitlements!!”
No. The Democrats support balancing the budget and support affordable health care for everyone.
See how your choice of words matter? If you don’t get that, you are either feigning ignorance, or truly ignorant. Which is it?
“In the meantime, you virtually ignored anything he had to say about the economy, resorting instead to calling him a ‘fuckwit.’”
No, I dealt with what he said to me directly… and called him a fuckwit. (I did ignore his strawman attacks, but that’s hardly an issue you can use against me.) He said (nearly) everyone who wants an education can get one. I pointed out that there are people who can’t afford to quit their jobs to get an education. As far as I can tell, he never addressed that point and instead focuses on the fuckwit part. That’s a style over substance fallacy.
Also, “Class warfare types such as yourselves…” is an Ad Hominem attack.
“He said (nearly) everyone who wants an education can get one. I pointed out that there are people who can’t afford to quit their jobs to get an education. As far as I can tell, he never addressed that point and instead focuses on the fuckwit part. That’s a style over substance fallacy.”
Ok C.S., here you go. There are students at the university I work at, from every conceivable background, from every type of circumstance. Single parents. Students who come from less privileged backgrounds. People who hold jobs while going to night school. The fact is that where this a will, there is a way. You make it sound like people have no options, no opportunities, and they are forever trapped in their circumstances. You make it sound like advancement in life is unattainable. It most certainly is not. It takes committment, sacrifice, and the will to succeed. I have seen kids come from the most humble of circumstances, not from privilege- borrow over 100k for college and grad school, and become successes in the medical and legal professions. Not every successful person making six figures comes from wealth and privilege, you know- in fact, many there are more than you’ve probably ever thought possible. There is so much opportunity in this country, and all I see you do is discount it or ignore it.
As to my point about taxes, that stands. Bush cut taxes, and surprise! record federal receipts were recorded in succeeding years. Just like under JFK and Reagan. You can call me a “F#$#wit”, but you didn’t “Correct” any of my misconceptions. Go ahead- make the arguement how raising taxes stimulates economic growth. Tell me how raising taxes isn’t punitive to all income levels, particularly middle income earners. Make the case.
Finally, I find it amusing that you would retroactively blame Bush if his successor, particularly a Democratic successor, raised taxes. It makes me wonder what other actions our next President takes would be attributable to the President Bush. I would guess it would probably the unpopular decisions, just so you can pass the buck. We’ve come a long way from Harry Truman, it seems.
Here’s the case, Lucha: Reagan raised taxes. Look it up. Reagan’s 1982 tax increase raised taxes by 1.3% of GDP. And that doesn’t even count Reagan’s huge tax hikes in ’84 and ’85. In fact, the only years Reagan didn’t raise taxes were ’81 and ’88.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp
Anyway, Lucha, the basic case for tax and spend is to even out the boom/bust cycle. It’s not that taxes make people more prosperous, it’s that taxes pay for government spending at critical points, preventing depression. It’s a form of safety net for society.
VDH-
I would refer you to the following article which gives the full Reagan record, and puts those tax increases in context-
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200406101010.asp
I would also remind you that Reagan was never for raising taxes. In the instances in which Reagan signed these tax increases (two bills in 8 years), they were compromises with Democrats which allowed him to increase military spending to defeat the Soviets. If Reagan had a Republican Congress, rest assured there would never have been any tax increases.
As to your assertion that tax increases are needed to pay for government spending in order to prevent depression- how about cutting run away entitlement spending? Look at the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, plus the recently enacted Drug entitlement plan. Embedded in each of these programs is waste, inefficiency, and corruption- as much as 10 percent of each of these programs. Factor in billions of farm subsidies. These programs redistribute monies from one group of people to another. Increasing the spending for these programs, which come from increasing the taxpayer burden, is the surefire way to bring about a recession, and perhaps even a depression. FDR’s vision of a “safety net” only prolonged the depression- it literally took the country 12 years to shake off the depression under his stewardship of the economy (mind you he was a good commander in chief of the military, and his steadfastness is to be admired). Unfortunately for us, it is his legacy to us which is unsustainable- 15 years more of Social Security solvency is about all that remains.
Lucha, Jim Powell’s screed against Roosevelt is an almost perfect example of a Libertarian misunderstanding of history and humanity. Read a real book.
Yawn. I’m glad to see you concede Reagan’s massive tax increases didn’t harm the economy, and served the greater good. So will ours.
“15 years more of Social Security solvency is about all that remains.”
2043 is only 25 years away? Who knew? Does that mean I get a flying car next year?
I mean 15.
“The Washington Post-ABC News consumer comfort index (CCI), a barometer of the public’s assessment of current economic conditions, plunged nine points this week, the biggest ever one-week drop since the poll started in late 1985. The CCI now stands at -20 on its scale of –100 to +100, well off its high for the year, +2 in March, and near its post-Hurricane Katrina lows.”
… obviously, according to Jay, Lucha, et al., the people examined for this study must all be ignorant rubes unable to appreciate how amazing the Dow is.
What a joke. Soviet military expenditures didn’t increase 1 nickel during Reagan’s buildup. His massive Pentagon welfare pit only served to triple a national debt that had taken more than 200 years to get to the 1 trillion dollar mark. Massive corruption and a sh*tty economic system brought the Soviet Union down, not some pumped up cowboy arms race fantasy. Thankfully Reagan had the sense to recognize an opportunity when it was handed to him on a platter and made peace with Gorbachev (though Reagan did f*ck up a chance to nearly eliminate all nuclear weapons).
The grotesquely bloated military budget represents half of the 2+ trillion dollar budget, and that doesn’t include black book programs or supplemental expenditures like additional war appropriations. Amazing that we can afford dead end projects like the missile shield but not body armor or armored up Humvees, not to mention decent care for the wounded. The other 2 heavy hitters are Medicare and Social Security. SS is a special case since it is a reserved payroll tax and isn’t supposed to be part of the general fund, though that hasn’t stopped Congress from using the SS surplus to pay down the debt and artificially lower the deficit. No money comes from the general fund to pay down SS obligations, however. As for SS solvency, we have something like 40+ years before we have to reduce payments, and not from current levels but from future adjusted levels (none of which is close to a collapse of the system). The only way there is a shortfall is if the market under performs, which would take private funds down with it as well. All other discretionary spending can’t even rise to the 20% mark. Medicare is inefficient? Really? It’s odd then that the administrative costs of Medicade are only 3% while private insurance administrative costs come in as high as 14% or more.
Hey, at least I agree that most farm subsidies are crap. you can oil and most other corporate welfare to that list.
Jay, we are paying for the Iraqi war on credit and the president has not asked for any current sacrifice out of political convenience. I am curious whether you hold Bush to the same level of accountability that you seem to hold your neighbors.
Instead of waiting another year or two, they just had to have it and now that the situation is screwed up, it’s the fault of the lenders who structured the loan as the customer agreed.
You’re the one who’s amazing, Jay. Do you really think thousands of buyers pressured these poor lenders to write risky business? Any lender worth their salt isn’t going to write a loan for any reason other than the fact the loan is reasonable risk. What motive is there for lenders to consisitantly write high risk notes whose default jeopardizes the lenders solvency?
Excess profit, that’s what. Lenders CHOSE to write bad notes in order to grab more business. If they can’t understand their own business model, they deserve to fail. Again, the ultimate decision on whether or not the money was loaned is the LENDERS. Buyers can ask, but only lenders decide.
The sub-prime loans were a lending scam, and the lenders own it.
“Ok C.S., here you go. There are …”
People who have to work multiple jobs just to pay for rent. For these people, education isn’t an option.
This Horatio Alger, Jr. mentality really has to stop. The upward mobility in the United States is very limited and it takes more than courage and pluck to make it.
“As to my point about taxes, that stands. Bush cut taxes, and surprise! record federal receipts were recorded in succeeding years.”
Wow. The country adds 20 million people AND 17% inflation over six years. I’m so fucking impressed that federal receipts didn’t fall.
You are damning it with faint praise and you don’t even know it.
“Go ahead- make the arguement how raising taxes stimulates economic growth.”
I’ll tell you that as you as you tell me how else you are supposed to pay for the Iraq war, and the other massive expenses Bush added to the budget.
“Finally, I find it amusing that you would retroactively blame Bush if his successor, particularly a Democratic successor, raised taxes.”
If you buy a house you can’t afford, who should be responsible for the mortgage? You should be blamed when you have to cut your budget in other places? Who should be blamed if you need to get a second job? You or the person who’s trying to keep you from going bankrupt.
“they were compromises with Democrats which allowed him to increase military spending to defeat the Soviets.”
That actually happened under Carter. In fact, I would go so far as to say Armstrong and Henderson had more to do with the fall of the U.S.S.R. than Reagan did.
“Embedded in each of these programs is waste, inefficiency, and corruption- as much as 10 percent of each of these programs.”
Private sector has 30% inefficiency. Expanding these programs would improve health care and cost less money. SCHIP proved that, which is why Bush wants to kill it.
“Unfortunately for us, it is his legacy to us which is unsustainable- 15 years more of Social Security solvency is about all that remains.”
This is why I called you a fucking moron. This is wrong.
You might not like my debating style, but the facts are on my side.
I think we will know who the next president will be at 7:00 pm on election night. That’s when Virginian and Kentucky close their polls and if either of those are too close to call, then the Dems will have won. If either of those are actually won by the Dems at that time, it will be a blowout.
Oops. Wrong thread.
Again, the ultimate decision on whether or not the money was loaned is the LENDERS. Buyers can ask, but only lenders decide.
And there you have it. Buyers ask. They’re the ones taking on the responsibility of the debt. People need to be more informed about the decisions that they make. Unless a lender was totally dishonest about the lending terms, you cannot in good faith, call it a ‘scam.’ It was all laid out for the buyer before they signed on the dotted line.
“And there you have it. Buyers ask. They’re the ones taking on the responsibility of the debt.”
So the lenders are not responsible for giving money to people who sometimes didn’t even give the proper identification? Don’t they at least share some of the blame here?
Also, considering the new bankruptcy bill, I think it is not a stretch to say these lenders knew the people they were giving money to were not able to pay it back. They were expecting to be able to foreclose on the property and resell it for a profit. Or at the very worse, whine to the government and get a hand out.
They were expecting to be able to foreclose on the property and resell it for a profit.
Of course they were. Recall that all these bad loans were made at the height of the real estate frenzy.
Besides, the original lender rarely keeps the loan. They usually sell them at a discount to large investors.